Whose fault is this?

Hooblue

Really?

So when you reverse you only look directly behind you and never either side to check that there’s nothing coming from another direction?

The red car could totally have avoided the collision. She obviously saw the bike and car go past and stopped. She then continued to reverse, assuming the road was now clear. If she had been looking backwards at all after that she would have seen the grey car (which was already on and most of the way across the road at this point) and stopped where she was. But she only became aware of it at the last second, hence when she applied the brakes a split second before impact.

jenam93

Yes really.  You asked for opinions, I've given mine and it differs from yours.  That's ok

Of course when reversing you look around and are generally aware of what is occurring, but you can't look sideways and backwards at the same time.  As you are reversing, you will predominately be looking backwards more than anything else though.

In simpler terms, the red car did not hit the grey car so in my opinion the grey car is the only car that could have actually stopped the accident from happening as it hit the red one.  The red one was stopped, however briefly, and therefore did not cause the accident itself.  It contributed, no question, but the grey car did the actual hitting and therefore should take most of the liability.  Again, in my opinion.

Hooblue

I did ask for opinions and do value them all.

Yes you will be looking backwards, but I was always taught that you should be constantly looking around you when going backwards, especially if reversing on to a road

I think to say that just because one car was moving and the other wasn’t it is largely the fault of the moving car is abit simplistic. What if a car pulled out in front of me at a junction, saw me and stopped but it was too late for me to stop?  Given that logic it would be largely my fault. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it was 100% the red cars fault as it wasn’t, but they both contributed towards it in different ways and could both have taken action to avoid the bump.

Steviebhoy

It is getting a bit heated now... Opinions can be different.. some are getting upset at others opinions.. everyone needs to calm down.. jeez..[emoji10][emoji10]

Hooblue

Agreed, and that's why we have insurance companies to help deal with situations like this.

As soon as I hear back from them in terms of a decision I'll make sure to update the thread.

Steviebhoy

It was the red cars fault though [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

Astaroth

So in your opinion then, if the red car had spotted the other car reversing onto the road at the same time as it stopped for the bike and therefore had waited where it'd had stopped for the bike that they grey car would still have hit it?

As illustrated by the failing to give way at a side road, whos moving/stationary at the exact moment of the impact is irrelevant. If the red car hadn't moved after stopping for the bike and the "unavoidable" accident still happened then the grey car would have been at fault given the changed circumstances but in reality they failed to observe the other vehicle so recommenced their procedure resulting in the collision.

Steviebhoy

[emoji23][emoji23]

Astaroth

The insurance companies basically do exactly the same as we are... they debate their views and negotiate a solution based on case law, expertise and appetite for court. A good claim handler on one side or a stronger willingness to litigate etc can all influence the outcome.

So they'd say they are holding us liable because our Ph pulled out of the side road. We'd then argue that as per Powell v Moody their customer was overtaking stationary traffic making their own lane and therefore 80/20 in our favour. They then say actually its a two lane road and so Worsford v Howe is more relevant and a 50/50 settlement etc etc

Back in my days our team triaged cases of complex liability or where PH or TP has disputed our initial assumption on liability. Without doubt I would take on more cases to fight than one of my colleagues who'd push it to say we accept liability so it went off his desk to the TP Loss team.

jenam93

It's not heated, it's a discussion about opinions, that's all.  It's ok to discuss things like this without it being called heated.

The simple terms I mentioned were only meant to apply to this example, not other ones as every situation is different.  I tried to suggest this by then mentioning the cars colours in particular.

There is no doubt that both contributed to the problem, which is why it would probably end up 50/50.  If there was to be more blame apportioned to one car than the other, then I would put more blame on the grey car in this instance.  Hence if I was in the red car, I'd ask the question of the grey car owner to foot the bill, just because it is worth asking as you never know what they will say.

Bottom line is, it was an accident, nobody meant to have it or cause it.  As long as everyone is ok the rest is just semantics (and money obviously!)